Samuels v. Bowers’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 1990 · most notably Watters Ex Rel. Watters v. Parrish (1960), Singletary v. Nixon (1954)
37 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bundy v. . Powell · Conley Ex Rel. Conley v. Pearce-Young-Angel Co. · Winfield v. Smith · Cole v. Koonce · Hobbs v. . Drewer
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The principle is generally recognized that when a gratuitous passenger becomes aware that the automobile in which he is riding is being persistently driven at an excessive and dangerous speed, the duty devolves upon him in the exercise of due care for his own safety to caution the driver, and, if his warning is disregarded and speed unaltered, to request that the automobile be stopped and he be permitted to leave the car. (Citations omitted.) He may not acquiesce in a continued course of negligent conduct on the part of the driver and then claim damages ... for injury proximately resulting therefrom. But this duty is not absolute and is dependent on circumstances.” (Citations omitted.) 232 N.C. at 153 , 59 S.E. 2d at 790 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lawson v. Benton · Bell v. Maxwell““The failure of a guest to exercise ordinary care for his own safety may consist of his voluntarily riding in an overcrowded motor vehicle. In a few cases involving an action brought by a guest against the driver or owner of a motor vehicle for injuries sustained in an accident proximately resulting from the overcrowded condition of the vehicle, it was held under the circumstances that the guest was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in riding in such vehicle. Ordinarily, however, the question of the contributory negligence of the guest in such respects has been held to be one for the jury. In some cases, it has been held that the guest was not guilty of contributory negligence in riding in a crowded motor vehicle under the circumstances present.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, the question of the contributory negligence of a guest in an automobile involved in a collision, is for the jury to decide in the light of all the surrounding facts and circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.